Chapter 1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas,
1970–2010
Albert Esteve, Antonio López-Gay, Julián López-Colás, Iñaki Permanyer,
Sheela Kennedy, Benoît Laplante, Ron J. Lesthaeghe, Anna Turu,
and Teresa Antònia Cusidó
1
Introduction
In this chapter, we trace the geography of unmarried cohabitation in the Americas
on an unprecedented geographical scale in family demography. We present the percentage of partnered women aged 25–29 in cohabitation across more than 19,000
local units of 39 countries, from Canada to Argentina, at two points in time, 2000
and 2010. The local geography is supplemented by a regional geography of cohabitation that covers five decades of data from 1960 to 2010. Our data derive primarily
from the rich collection of census microdata amassed by the Centro Latinoamericano
y Caribeño de Demografía (CELADE) of the United Nations and from the IPUMSinternational collection of harmonized census microdata samples (Minnesota
Population Center 2014). In preparing these maps over 2 years, the authors retrieved
A. Esteve (*) • A. López-Gay • J. López-Colás • I. Permanyer • A. Turu • T.A. Cusidó
Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics (CED), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB),
Bellaterra, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
S. Kennedy
Minnesota Population Center (MPC), University of Minnesota-Twin Cities,
Minneapolis, MN, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Laplante
Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS),
Université du Québec, Montréal, QC, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
R.J. Lesthaeghe
Free University of Brussels and Royal Flemish Academy of Arts and Sciences of Belgium,
Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s) 2016
A. Esteve, R.J. Lesthaeghe (eds.), Cohabitation and Marriage
in the Americas: Geo-historical Legacies and New Trends,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31442-6_1
1
2
A. Esteve et al.
the data from CELADE, searched for alternative data for the missing countries and
censuses, prepared the digital boundary files, produced the maps and analyzed the
results.
Such a degree of effort was required to unveil the rich spatial heterogeneity in
cohabitation both across and within countries, heterogeneity that would have
remained hidden had the analysis been conducted at the country or even at the province level. This study also examines whether, despite the recent increases in cohabitation, there has been continuity in the regional patterning of cohabitation over the
last five decades.
The results have not been disappointing. The following sections show that the
geographic analysis of cohabitation has unveiled a substantial amount of spatial
heterogeneity both within and across countries, reminding us of the importance of
contextual level factors. We also show that the regional patterning of cohabitation
has remained relatively unchanged over the last decades, which points to the presence of geo-historical legacies in the present patterns of unmarried cohabitation.
However, if the expansion of cohabitation continues at its current pace, such legacies
may soon blur. The analysis of the data left us with some unexpected surprises, one
being the striking correlation between altitude and the rate of cohabitation observed
in all Andean countries, to which we will devote the last section of this chapter.
2
The Motivation for a Map
Although social scientists have not had many opportunities to examine social phenomena using local level data for an entire continent, the few precedents have been
extremely illuminating. The Princeton Project on the Decline of Fertility in Europe
is one of the most remarkable studies of this scope (Coale and Watkins 1986). Under
the guidance and coordination of Ansley Coale, the Princeton project amassed a
collection of creative family and fertility life indicators for 1229 provinces in Europe
from the late eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. The results showed
that the unfolding of the fertility transition in Europe occurred under a wide variety
of social and economic conditions, often following religious and linguistic contours. The widespread heterogeneity across regions motivated Ansley Coale to
develop his praised explanatory framework of the ‘willing’, ‘ready’ and ‘able’ conditions for social change (Coale 1973).
The lack of geographic awareness in social science research is not necessarily
because of a lack of interest among researchers (e.g. Billy and Moore 1992;
Bocquet-Appel and Jakobi 1998; Boyle 2014; Klüsener et al. 2013; Vitali et al.
2015) but may be attributable to the lack of data and limited access. Surveys’ microdata have become the primary statistical source for family studies. Compared with
traditional censuses or population registers, surveys offer much greater conceptual
detail but more limited geographic detail, basically because of sample size.
Conversely, population censuses based on universal enumeration provide detailed
geographic coverage although access to such detail is not always available for reasons of confidentiality.
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
3
The availability of geographic data affects the research questions and the interpretation of results (Weeks 2004). Large cross-national studies are overwhelmingly
conducted at the country level, and in some cases, countries must be grouped to
develop statistical representativeness (e.g., European countries are often grouped
into northern, western, southern, and eastern countries). Multilevel models are
becoming increasingly popular in cross-national research to, at least, account for
variance at the country level (e.g., Soons and Kalmijn 2009; Aassve et al. 2013).
Rarely is there a multilevel model in which individual factors account for differences across countries or regions, which suggests that, despite the emphasis on individual level explanations, the contextual factors are certainly important.
Little is known regarding within-country differences in cohabitation and even
less when the analysis involves more than one country (Quilodrán 1983 and 2001).
As in Europe, most cross-national analyses have been conducted at the country level
(Rodríguez Vignoli 2005; García and Rojas 2002; Binstock and Cabella 2011;
Cerrutti and Binstock 2009). Broadly we know that Central America and the
Caribbean have historically had the highest levels of cohabitation and the South
Cone countries the lowest (Esteve et al. 2012; Castro-Martín 2002). The Andean
countries and Brazil lie somewhere in between. Although the US and Canada are
seldom compared to Latin American countries, in light of existing evidence, levels
of cohabitation are remarkably lower in the US but not in Canada. The Quebec
region has historically had higher levels of cohabitation than the rest of Canada (Le
Bourdais and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2004; Laplante 2006).
3
3.1
The Making of the Map of Cohabitation
Gathering the Data
The maps of unmarried cohabitation in the Americas would never have been possible if the information had not been previously collected, processed and disseminated by National Statistical Offices throughout the Americas over the last five
decades. Originally, all of our data came from multiple rounds of population censuses accessed through various databases and institutions. For the regional maps,
we primarily relied on IPUMS-international census microdata (Minnesota
Population Center 2014). IPUMS is the world’s largest repository of census microdata, currently disseminating data from 258 censuses from 79 countries, including
censuses from the 1960s to the 2010s census rounds. Our regional maps include
data from the 2010 round that were not available on the IPUMS website. Therefore,
we gathered these data from the respective National Statistical Institutes. The
regional maps offer geographic detail of the first or second administrative unit of
each country. We have prioritized those administrative units to allow maximum
comparability over time. In this regard, the first or second levels of geography (e.g.,
state level in the US, Mexico and Brazil) scarcely experience changes over time.
4
A. Esteve et al.
Data for the local maps were much more challenging to obtain. Table 1.1
describes the data used to produce the 2000 and 2010 maps of unmarried cohabitation. Table 1.1 presents information regarding the reference year, source of information, sample density, and name and number of the administrative unit used in each
of the 39 countries represented. Table 1.1 also provides information regarding the
average population and surface per unit. The map depicts data for 32 countries and
15,895 units in the year 2000 and 20 countries and 17,397 units in 2010. The majority of the data came from full counts of census microdata obtained from the
CELADE’s database. For 14 Caribbean countries and Belize, we used aggregated
census data from the Caribbean Community organization (CARICOM). The French
National Statistical Institute, INSEE, provided data for Guadalupe, Martinique and
French Guiana. Cuban data from 2002 were obtained from the IPUMS international
project. Finally, data for Canada, the United States and Colombia were directly
accessed through their respective statistical offices.
The number of units and the scale of the analysis employed to produce the local
maps of cohabitation vary widely across countries and over time. In all countries
except Bolivia, Chile, El Salvador and Honduras, we used the lowest geographical
level at which we could estimate the proportion of cohabitation given the available
data. Brazil provides the largest number of units with over 5500 municipalities, followed by Mexico (2456 municipalities in 2010), the United States (2071 counties),
Peru (1833 districts) and Venezuela (1128 parishes in 2010). In Bolivia, Chile, El
Salvador and Honduras, we abandoned the initial idea of using the lowest geographic detail available because of the difficulty of obtaining the corresponding
geographic boundary files for the final mapping. In Bolivia, for example, we used
the 314 secciones instead of the 1384 cantones; in Chile, we used 314 municipios
instead of 2881 distritos; in El Salvador, 261 municipios in place of 2270 cantones;
and in Honduras, we used 298 municipios instead of 3727 aldeas. On the whole, we
have a heterogeneous geographic coverage in terms of average population and surface per unit (as shown in Table 1.1) that may not be optimal for some geographic
analysis but provides an extremely informative account of the geography of cohabitation in the Americas.
Boundary files for the various countries and geographic units were obtained from
multiple sources but primarily from CELADE, websites of National Statistical
Institutes and the GADM database website. We used GIS software to assemble the
country-specific boundary files and produce a unique shape file for the entire
Americas.
3.2
Identifying Unmarried Cohabitation
Latin American censuses have historically provided an explicit category for consensual unions. The examination of the questionnaires of all Latin American and
Caribbean censuses conducted between the 1960s and 2010s reveals that the vast
majority of cohabitants could be explicitly identified either by the variables ‘marital
Central
America
Belize
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
South
America
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Country
North
America
Canada
Mexico
United States
CARICOM/SIB
CELADE/INEC
CELADE
CELADE
CELADE
CELADE
CELADE/INEC
CELADE/INDEC
CELADE/INE
CELADE/IBGE
CELADE
2000/2010
2001/2012
2000/2010
2002/-
STATCAN
CELADE/INEGI
IPUMS
Census data provider
(2000/2010)
2000/2010
2000/2011
-/2007
2002/2001/-/2005
2000/2010
2001/2011
2000/2010
2000/
(2007–2011)
Census year
(2000/2010
rounds)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
20
100
5
Census
sample
(%)
2/1
3
3
3
0/1
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
Administrive
level
Department/province
Section
Municipality
Commune
Single division/district
District
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Municipality
Corregimiento
Census division
Municipality
PUMA
Denomination
532/23
314/339
5,507/5,565
342
1/6
459/472
262
331
298
153
592
288/293
2,443/2,456
2,071
Number of
units
(2000/2010)
1,576,527
29,675
34,278
44,200
41,486
9,372
21,924
33,949
20,392
33,609
4,793
114,255
45,793
148,046
Average
pop. per
unit (in last
data
available)
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
(continued)
120,887
3,241
1,530
2,220
3,828
111
77
327
377
787
126
33,961
800
4,417
Average
surface
area (km2)
(in last
data av.)
Table 1.1 Summary of the census data, boundary files and geographic details used to analyze the prevalence of consensual unions in the Americas in the 2000
and 2010 census rounds
1
5
Country
Colombia
Ecuador
French Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Rep. of Guyana
Uruguay
Venezuela
Caribbean
Anguilla
Antigua and
Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican
Republic
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Census data provider
(2000/2010)
DANE
CELADE/INEC
INSEE (FR)
CELADE
CELADE
CARICOM
CELADE/INE
CELADE
CARICOM
CARICOM
CARICOM
CELADE
IPUMS
CARICOM
CELADE/ONE
CARICOM
INSEE (FR)
Census year
(2000/2010
rounds)
-/2005
2001/2010
-/2008
2002/-/2007
2002/1996/2010
2001/2011
2001
2001
2000
2000
2002
2001
2002/2010
2001
2008
Table 1.1 (continued)
Administrive
level
2
3
0
2
3
0
1/2
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
Census
sample
(%)
100
100
100a
100
100
100a
100
100
100a
100a
100a
100
10
100a
100
100a
100a
Single division
Single division
Single division
Parish
Parish
Single division
Municipality
Single division
Single division
Denomination
Municipality
Parish
Single division
Census district
District
Single division
Department/census tr.
Parish
1
1
1
11
15
1
225/386
1
1
Number of
units
(2000/2010)
1,113
995/1,024
1
241
1,833
1
19/229
1,116/1,128
103,137
401,784
303,611
22,728
745,845
69,775
24,470
11,430
63,863
Average
pop. per
unit (in last
data
available)
36,995
14,144
219,266
21,424
14,955
751,230
14,350
24,138
360
1,731
13,388
74
7,382
754
125
83
436
Average
surface
area (km2)
(in last
data av.)
994
277
83,299
1,655
702
209,739
769
812
6
A. Esteve et al.
CARICOM
CARICOM
INSEE (FR)
CARICOM
CARICOM
CARICOM
CARICOM/CSO
CELADE
2001
2001
2008
2001
2001
2001
2001/2010
2000
0
100a
a
0
1
0
0
0
0
100a
100a
100a
100a
100
100
0
100a
Source: Authors’ tabulations based on the 2000 and 2010 census rounds
Aggregate data in the census samples
British Virgin
Islands
Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat
Saint Kitts and
Nevis
Saint Vincent
and the Gren.
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and
Tobago
Single division
Parish
Single division
Single division
Single division
Single division
Single division
Single division
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
156,741
74,318
106,253
2,607,635
397,693
4,303
46,325
23,161
614
344
398
11,000
1,118
101
267
169
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
7
8
A. Esteve et al.
status’ (dominant approach) or ‘union status’ (quite common in Caribbean countries) or by a direct question (e.g., in Brazil and more recently in Argentina and
Suriname). In Canada and the United States, the identification of unmarried cohabitation occurred much later, in 1981 and in 1990, respectively. For the United States,
cohabiting couples were identified on the basis of their relationship to the head of
the household and marital status: the unmarried partner of an unmarried head of
household is considered to be in a cohabiting union.1
After identifying cohabiting unions, we computed the percentage of cohabiting
women among 25-29-year-old women in unions. Women in unions are those who
report being married or cohabiting at the time of the census. For the geography of
cohabitation, whether one focuses on men or women does not matter.2
4
The Increase in Cohabitation in the Americas
from a Regional Perspective
The results that are reported in this study stem from extensive analysis of the harmonized Latin American census microdata samples presented in the previous sections. This analysis uses as many census rounds between 1970 and 2000 as possible.
Consequently, with the exception of a few areas, the time series generally captures
the initial increases in the degree of cohabitation among all unions. The census estimates of the proportion of cohabitation for women 25–29 are equally available for
the regions of the various countries. For most countries, these regions remain the
same over the entire period of observation, except for Brazil and Haiti, in which the
spatial resolution improves, beginning with 26 regions in 1970 and increasing to
135 smaller regions in Brazil and increasing from 9 to 19 in Haiti. There are no
regional data for Puerto Rico whereas Cuba, Honduras and Jamaica contribute
information only for the 2000 census round. Bolivia, Belize and Costa Rica only
provide information accumulated after the 2000 census round. Until the 1990s,
there are no data on cohabitation for the United States and Canada.
Geographical details can be gleaned from the two series of maps presented in
Maps 1.1 and 1.2. The maps in the first series are of the classic type and have the
advantage of familiarity. However, these maps misrepresent the demographic weight
of each region, sometimes enormously so. For example, the Amazon basin covers
1
Recent research indicates that this approach underestimates US cohabitation levels by 20 % compared with direct methods (Kennedy and Fitch 2012). Consequently, we adjusted our estimates to
reflect this under-reporting. Our adjusted estimates of the percentage of women who were cohabiting in 2000 exactly match the cohabitation estimates produced for 2002 using a direct cohabitation
question (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008).
2
The degree of correlation between female and male cohabitation rates across local units is 0.93.
Concentrating on the 25–29 age group permits the comparison of successive cohorts at an age at
which education is already completed and patterns of family formation have become clear.
Alternative age groups yielded identical spatial patterning. The degree of correlation between
female 25–29 and female 35–39 cohabitation rates across local units is 0.87.
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
9
Map 1.1 Share of consensual unions among all 25-to-29-year-old women in a union based on
census data from the 2000 census (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on census microdata from
the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
10
A. Esteve et al.
Map 1.2 Share of consensual unions among all 25-to-29-year-old women in a union based on
census data from the 2010 census (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on census microdata from
the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
11
an extremely large area but is only sparsely populated. Conversely, large urban areas
are barely dots on a classic map but may contain sizable portions of a nation’s population. To correct for this anomaly, a series of Gastner-Newman cartograms was
created, which may look less familiar but do respect the true demographic weight of
each region (see Map 1.2). Obviously, the color (shading) codes have been kept
constant for the 5 census rounds so that the “darkening” of the map fully captures
the ubiquitous American cohabitation boom.
By 1970, fewer than 25 regions of the 224 represented on the map reached a
percentage of cohabitation above 50 %. These regions were located in Central
America (Panama) and in some areas of Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. Most
regions at that time had levels below 25 %. None of the 13 regions in Chile reached
a level of 25 % until 1990. However, at the time of the 2000 census, 6 regions of
these 13 had crossed that threshold. In Brazil, only 11 of 133 regions had passed the
lower threshold of 25 % by 1980. By 2010, 115 regions had surpassed that level, and
32 regions had previously surpassed the much higher threshold of 60 % cohabitation
rather than marriage. The movement in Argentina is quite similar. In the 1970 census, 5 of 25 regions had cohabitation rates of 25 % or more, and by 2010, all of the
regions had crossed that lower threshold. Furthermore, all of the regions had previously crossed the line with more women 25–29 in cohabitation than in marriage.
The increase in Mexico is less spectacular before 2000 but accelerates later. Twentyfive of the 32 states reported a share of cohabitation above 25 % in 2010 whereas
there were only 6 in 1970, 3 in 1990 and 13 in 2000.
Of all countries, the most striking cohabitation boom may have occurred in
Colombia. In 1970, only 2 regions of 30 had more cohabiting than married young
women, and 15 regions did not even reach the 25 % threshold. However, in 2005
(the 2005 data are shown in the 2010 census round map), all 33 regions had not only
passed the lower but also the upper threshold of 50 %.
As noted earlier, not only the countries with low or moderate levels of “old
cohabitation” in 1970 or 1980 saw increases but also the countries with higher levels (e.g., Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela). These countries were previously
above the lower threshold of 25 % to begin with; thus, for these countries, the upper
threshold is more relevant. In Venezuela, all of the 24 regions passed the 50 % mark
in 2010 whereas there were only 4 regions in 1970. Between 1993 and 2007, our
maps show a jump from 8 to 24 regions above the 50 % level for the 25 Peruvian
regions. Finally, two-thirds of the 15 Cuban regions joined the fifty-percent group
by 2000 and all 10 Panamanian regions joined in 2000 and 2010.
In 1990, the lowest levels of cohabitation were registered in the United States. In
that year, cohabitation in the US was lower than in any other American country during the two previous decades. All but one of the 51 US states were below the 25 %
threshold in 1990. By 2010, 16 states were above the 25 % level, and there was only
1 state below the 10 % level, compared with 26 states that had less than 10 % cohabitation in 1990. Canadian regions were all above 10 % in 1990; however, only 3 were
above 25 %. Two decades later, all of the Canadian 12 regions were above 25 % and
4 had cohabitation levels above 50 %.
12
A. Esteve et al.
A telling manner in which to describe the regional data comprises ranking the
regions by level of cohabitation as measured at the earliest date and following the
regions as they move up in the ensuing decades. This is performed for 15 countries
in Fig. 1.1. In addition, a straight line was included through the provincial data
points for each census so that one can see whether the distribution shifted more as a
result of the tail being pulled up or the vanguard moving out. In this manner, the
lines are essentially parallel in Mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Brazil, indicating
that all regions had similar absolute increases in percentages cohabiting, irrespective of their earlier position in the distribution. The majority of the other countries
have higher increments in regions that were at the lower end to begin with. This
catching-up effect also indicates that the overall increase is because of a slightly
greater degree of “new” rather than “old” cohabitation. The primary exception was
observed in Chile, in which the increase between the 1990 and 2000 census rounds
is largest for the areas that previously had higher cohabitation rates. Finally, El
Salvador retained the distribution of 1990 with scarcely any changes in overall levels. If anything, the 2010 census round for El Salvador indicates the disappearance
of regional heterogeneity.
The bottom two panels of Fig. 1.1 contain the ranked regional levels for the single census round of 2000, and the slopes of the fitted lines in this instance are
indicative of regional homogeneity (flat) or heterogeneity (steeper). Honduras,
Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have the least heterogeneity in this respect, and
Belize, Bolivia and Cuba the most.
Finally, we present the list of 25 regions that, respectively, had the lowest and the
highest shares of cohabiting women aged 25–29 in 1970 in addition to the subsequent increments in these rates over the next three decades. As shown in Table 1.2,
24 of the 25 “lowest” regions began with less than 5 % cohabitation, and the increase
to levels of up to 40 % can be considered “new cohabitation”. The most spectacular
of such increases occurred in seven Brazilian regions (Parana, Ceara, Minas Gerais,
Santa Catarina, Piaui, Sao Paulo and particularly Rio Grande do Sul), in Argentina
(Cordoba), Chile (RM Santiago) and Colombia (Valparaiso). At the other extreme,
among the 25 regions with the highest proportions of “old” cohabitation, the majority of these regions consolidated their positions although others increased more than
10 percentage points. The latter are areas in Colombia (Cordoba, Cesar and particularly Choco and La Guajira), Ecuador (Esmaraldas), Venezuela (Portuguesa,
Amazonas, Yaracuy, Delta Amacuro) and even in Panama (Colon).
5
The Local View for 2000 and 2010
The regional perspective of the Fig. 1.1 has shown trends in cohabitation over the
last four decades and across more than 500 regions across the Americas. From the
local perspective, we portray the same indicator but for a number of units forty
times higher than the number of regions. The local view substantially increases the
resolution of the geography of cohabitation. The local perspective defines more
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
13
Fig. 1.1 Patterns in the increase in the percent of cohabitation among partnered women 25–29 in
regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, various census rounds, 1970–2010 (Source: Authors’
elaboration based on census samples from IPUMS-International)
14
A. Esteve et al.
Fig. 1.1 (continued)
clearly the spatial boundaries of the areas with high and low levels of cohabitation.
For this occasion, and as an exception to the entire book, the local maps of cohabitation have been edited in color, in shades of blue and red (Maps 1.3 and 1.4). Bluish
colors indicate that marriage among women 25–29 in a union is more important
than cohabitation, and reddish colors indicate that cohabitation is more important
than marriage. The reddening of the map between 2000 and 2010 indicates a
1
15
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
Table 1.2 Changes in the percent of cohabitation among partnered women 25–29 in the 25 regions
with the lowest and the highest initial levels of cohabitation in 1970
Ecuador
Chile
2.4
2.5
18.2
18.1
Ecuador
Chile
2.7
3.0
8.7
19.5
Brazil
Mexico
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Brazil
Colombia
Brazil
Ecuador
Chile
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.9
28.9
7.1
32.6
35.7
16.2
30.4
23.9
26.0
11.6
24.8
Chiriquia
Veraguasa
Los Santos
Apure
Esmeraldas
Cojedes
Choco
Formosa
Colon
Cordoba
Panama
Panama
Panama
Venezuela
Ecuador
Venezuela
Colombia
Argentina
Panama
Colombia
69.9
68.6
65.3
60.8
60.7
58.2
57.1
52.1
51.7
50.8
61.4
68.2
61.1
65.6
75.4
62.0
87.4
59.1
62.0
79.5
16
17
18
Del Maule
Magallanes y
Antartica Chilena
Tungurahua
Del Libertador
General Bernardo
O’Higgins
Parana
Guanajuato
Cordoba
Ceara
Queretaro
Santa Catarina
Valparaiso
Minas Gerais
Loja
Region
Metropolitana de
Santiago
Cotopaxi
Piaui
Aguascalientes
25 Regions with the highest % of
cohabiting unions in 1970
%
Region
Country
1970
Kuna Yala
Panama
90.6
(San Blas)
Darien
Panama
81.0
Bocas del
Panama
78.4
Toroa
Los Rios
Ecuador
75.3
Cocle
Panama
70.7
Ecuador
Brazil
Mexico
3.9
4.0
4.1
13.6
27.6
9.3
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
50.4
50.2
49.5
67.6
63.9
67.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bio-Bio
Sao Paulo
Chimborazo
Cartago
Rio Grande do Sul
Canar
Carchi
Chile
Brazil
Ecuador
Costa Rica
Brazil
Ecuador
Ecuador
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.9
5.5
19.0
34.8
8.5
15.5
40.6
16.2
19.1
Amazonas
Yaracuy
Delta
Amacuro
Guayas
Panama
La Guajira
Herrera
Portuguesa
Cesar
Monagas
Ecuador
Panama
Colombia
Panama
Venezuela
Colombia
Venezuela
48.3
47.4
47.4
47.1
46.7
46.4
46.3
50.7
57.2
82.8
50.7
60.6
74.3
52.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
25 Regions with the lowest % of cohabiting
unions in 1970
%
%
Region
Country
1970 2000
Azuay
Ecuador
1.6
12.1
%
2000
85.1
82.1
73.9
74.4
75.7
Source: Authors’ tabulations based on census samples from IPUMS-International
a
The decrease in the % of cohabitation unions in these regions can be explained by the creation of
a new region in Panama in the 2000 round, which was created from existing regions (NgöbleBugle; 2000 = 88.44 %)
16
A. Esteve et al.
Map 1.3 Evolution of the regional share of consensual unions among all 25-to-29-year-old
women in a union based on 1970–2010 census data (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on census
microdata from the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
substantial increase in cohabitation throughout the Americas. In 2000, 33 % of the
19,255 areas had values of cohabitation above the 50 % level. In 2010, the percentage had increased to 51 %.
In approximately the year 2000, the highest rates of cohabitation were in Central
America, the Caribbean, Colombia and Peru. In all of these countries, the percentage of local units in which cohabitation was more prevalent than marriage reached
80 %. The lowest cohabitation rates were in the United States and Mexico; Canada,
Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile occupied intermediate
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
17
Map 1.4 Evolution of the regional share of consensual unions among all 25-to-29-year-old
women in a union based on 1970–2010 census data. Cartogram Map (administrative units are
weighted by population in 2000) (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on census microdata from
the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
positions. However, the country perspective hides a high degree of international
heterogeneity.
To assist with the description of the local maps, we created the boxplots displayed in Fig. 1.2, which summarizes local data on cohabitation from 17 countries,
showing the median and the interquantile range: longer bars indicate greater heterogeneity within countries. The whiskers represent the lowest and highest values still
18
A. Esteve et al.
Fig. 1.2 Regional distributions of the proportions of consensual unions among all 25–29-year-old
women in a union by country, based on census data from the 2000 and 2010 census rounds (Source:
Authors’ elaboration based on census microdata from the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for
the exact sources))
within the 1.5 IQR of the lower and upper quartiles. Countries are ordered on the
horizontal axis based on the median level of cohabitation of the most recent census
for each country. We excluded those countries for which there was only one
observation.
By the year 2000, the median values of cohabitation ranged from 15.2 % in the
United Sates to 76.8 % in the Dominican Republic. The United States is the only
country in which the median was below 20 %. In the 20–40 % range, there is a diverse
group of countries, including Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Bolivia,
Paraguay, Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago. In the 40–60 % range are three
Central American countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras) as well as
Venezuela and Barbados. Above the 60 % median level, there are five countries:
Colombia, Cuba, Panama, Peru and the Dominican Republic. By 2010, the median
values of cohabitation across local units had increased in all countries. The US still
represented the lowest levels of cohabitation although the median had increased from
15.2 % in 2000 to 22.7 % in 2010. The Dominican Republic continued to maintain
the record for having the highest levels of cohabitation. The median value of cohabitation increased in that country from 76.8 % cohabitation in 2000 to 83.2 in 2010.
What is most surprising about the boxplots is the substantial amount of internal
heterogeneity evident for certain countries. One manner in which to measure such
diversity is by looking at the interquantile range (IQR): the distance in percentage
points between the 25th and the 75th percentiles. For countries with two time points,
IQR values did not change dramatically, which indicates that the relative difference
within countries remained stable despite the widespread increase in cohabitation.
This is consistent with the results observed at the regional level: regions with the
highest levels of cohabitation in the past remain the regions with highest levels of
cohabitation in the present. The boxplots and the two local maps corroborate that
the regional patterning of cohabitation (regardless of changes in levels between
2000 and 2010) did not change significantly over the last decade.
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
19
Turning to the geographic heterogeneity within countries, Canada and Ecuador
stand out among the most internally diverse countries regarding the presence of
cohabitation. In both countries and in both years, the IQR values spanned approximately 40 % points, which indicates sharp contrasts between areas. When we examine the geography of cohabitation in Canada and Ecuador, we observe that the high
and low areas of cohabitation are not randomly distributed across local units.
Instead, there is substantial spatial clustering. In Canada, the Quebec region includes
the highest levels of cohabitation whereas in the other regions, from Ontario to
British Columbia, cohabitation is much lower. In Ecuador, the geographic patterning is neatly structured by the presence of the Andean range. Cohabitation is much
lower in the Andes than in the coastal and the Amazon regions.
After Canada and Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Brazil
display substantial heterogeneity as well, with IQR values ranging from 20 to 27
percentage points. As in Ecuador, the geography of the Andes is a useful demarcation to describe where the low values of cohabitation are in Bolivia and Colombia.
In Costa Rica, the lowest levels of cohabitation are observed in the central region
and the highest in the southern portions of the South Pacific (Brunca) and Caribbean
(Huetar Atlántico) regions. The highest levels of cohabitation in Brazil are in the
Amazonian basin and along the coast of the northern and northeastern regions. The
geography of low and high cohabitation is less clear in Mexico. Cohabitation rates
do not coincide with the delimitation of Mexico’s states. The clusters of municipalities with the highest levels of cohabitation are in the Sierra Madre occidental,
Chiapas and Veracruz.
At the opposite end, there are exceptionally homogenous countries among either
the low or the high cohabiting countries. The United States, Chile, El Salvador,
Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic have IQR values below 10 percentage
points. In all of these countries, the IQR values are computed from more than 100
units per country.
6
Cohabitation in the Andean States
One of the most surprising and consistent spatial patterns that emerged from the
local maps of cohabitation has been the systematic low rates of cohabitation
observed in the municipalities or localities of the Andes Mountains. Largely, this
pattern applies to those countries that are politically, culturally and geographically
known as the Andean States: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The
physical geography of the Andean states is clearly structured by the presence of the
Andean range that extends along the western coast of South America, stretching
from north to south through Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile
and Argentina. Along its length, the Andes are split into several mountain ranges
that are separated by intermediate depressions. The clearest example of that separation is Colombia, in which the Andes Mountains divide into three distinct parallel
chains, called cordillera oriental, central and occidental. Moreover, in the Andes
20
A. Esteve et al.
Map 1.5 Standard deviations (z-scores) from each country’s mean of the rate of cohabitation
among all 25-to-29-year-old women in a union. Based on census data from the last census available for Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on
census microdata from the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
are several high plains on which major cities such as Quito in Ecuador, Bogotá and
Medellín in Colombia, Arequipa in Perú, La Paz and Sucre in Bolivia and Mérida in
Venezuela are located.
What is the correlation between the Andes Mountains and cohabitation? In this
chapter, we do not provide an answer to this question although we can definitively
show the striking correlation that exists between the geography of the Andes and the
geography of cohabitation. Although levels of cohabitation are different across the
Andean countries, the relation between the two geographies is remarkably strong in
all of these countries except Peru.
Map 1.5 shows the local map of cohabitation only for Venezuela in 2001,
Colombia in 2005, Ecuador in 2001, Bolivia in 2001 and Peru in 2007. For this map,
we used country-specific standard scores, which measure the number of standard
deviations of an observation is above the mean. This process enhances the internal
geographic differences in cohabitation, controlling by the factor that countries have
different levels of cohabitation.
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
21
Fig. 1.3 Share of consensual unions by municipality’s altitude (in meters) among all 25-to-29year-old women in a union based on the 2000 census round for the Andean countries (Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela) (Source: Authors’ elaboration based on census microdata
from the represented countries (see Table 1.1 for the exact sources))
Ecuador stands out as the country that best exemplifies the structuring power of
the Andes with regard to cohabitation. The Andes Mountains run from the north to
the south of Ecuador, inland from the coast, and divide the country into three continental regions: the Costa, the Sierra and the Oriente. The parroquias (parishes)
located in the Sierra region show the lowest levels of cohabitation whereas the
Costa and Oriente regions present the highest levels of cohabitation. In Colombia,
Bolivia, Venezuela and to a lesser extent, Peru, the areas that have the lowest levels
of cohabitation in each country clearly outline the contour of the Andes Mountains.
One manner in which to show the relation between the geography of the Andes
and the geography of cohabitation is to examine the relation between altitude and
cohabitation. We used GIS software to assign each unit the altitude of its geometric
center. Figure 1.3 shows the average rate of cohabitation by each municipality’s altitude (in meters above sea level) among all women aged 25–29 in unions. Except in
Peru, we observe a negative relation between altitude and cohabitation. In Bolivia in
2001, the average rate of cohabitation in those municipalities located below 500 m
was slightly over 50 %. For those municipalities above 3000 m, cohabitation drops to
20 %. Colombia shows the most regular relation between altitude and cohabitation.
With every additional 500 m, cohabitation decreases by 6–7 percentage points. The
largest contrast in cohabitation between low and high altitudes is in Ecuador: a 60 %
cohabitation rate in municipalities below 500 m and 10 % in those above 3000 m. In
Venezuela, the decrease of cohabitation with altitude is observed until one reaches
1500 and 2000 m. Peru has a different pattern: the highest levels of cohabitation are
observed in those districts located between 1000 and 1500 m high. After that level,
cohabitation falls with additional altitude, as in the other Andean states.
What is the relation between altitude and cohabitation? At this point, we cannot
provide an answer to this question. Of course, we assume that altitude per se has
nothing to do with cohabitation; however, in the context of the Andean countries,
22
A. Esteve et al.
altitude may be a proxy for diverse social and cultural family environments that are
more or less prone to cohabitation. Is it religion? Perhaps the coastal and Amazonian
areas were less heavily Christianized during colonization. In the next chapters, we
will address several of the questions that may clarify this puzzling relation.
7
Conclusion
We have traced the geography of cohabitation in the Americas at the regional and
local levels. We have also explored changes in time. We have shown that the prevalence of cohabitation, as opposed to marriage, is quite diverse across countries and
that in the majority of countries, there is quite substantial regional and local heterogeneity. Such diversity reminds us of the importance of contextual factors. Despite
the increase in cohabitation, the regional and local patterning of cohabitation
remains scarcely changed, which unambiguously indicates the presence of geohistorical legacies in the most recent geography of cohabitation. The identification
of such legacies is one of the major challenges of this book. To the extent possible,
geographic diversity will be a constant across the next chapters. The rich geography
of cohabitation invites researchers to identify contextual level variables in the lowest possible geographic detail. The rich geography also reminds us that the interaction between individual and contextual level variables is critical to understanding
the social and regional patterning of the increase of cohabitation in the Americas.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce
the material.
References
Aassve, A., Arpino, B., & Billari, F. C. (2013). Age norms on leaving home: Multilevel evidence
from the European social survey. Environment and Planning A, 45(2), 383–401.
Billy, J. O., & Moore, D. E. (1992). A multilevel analysis of marital and nonmarital fertility in the
US. Social Forces, 70(4), 977–1011.
Binstock, G., & Cabella, W. (2011). La nupcialidad en el Cono Sur: evolución reciente en la formación de uniones en Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. In G. Binstock, J. Melo (Coords) Nupcialidad
y familia en la América Latina actual. Rio de Janeiro: Ediciones ALAP, Serie Investigaciones
No. 1, 35–60
1
A Geography of Cohabitation in the Americas, 1970–2010
23
Bocquet-Appel, J. P., & Jakobi, L. (1998). Evidence for a spatial diffusion of contraception at the
onset of the fertility transition in Victorian Britain. Population, 10(1), 181–204.
Boyle, P. (2014). Population geography: Does geography matter in fertility research? Progress in
Human Geography, 27(5), 615–626.
Castro-Martín, T. (2002). Consensual unions in Latin America: Persistence of a dual nuptiality
system. Journal of comparative family studies, 33(1), 35–55.
Cerrutti, M. S., & Binstock, G. P. (2009). Familias latinoamericanas en transformación: desafíos
y demandas para la acción pública. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas, Comisión Económica
para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), 61 pp. ISBN 9789213233337
Coale, A. J. (1973). The demographic transition reconsidered. In Proceedings of the international
population conference (Vol. I, pp. 53–72). Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study
of Population (IUSSP).
Coale, A. J., & Watkins, S. C. (Eds.). (1986). The decline of fertility in Europe: the revised proceedings of a Conference on the Princeton European Fertility Project. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 484 pp. ISBN 0691094160 (cloth), 0691101760 (pbk).
Esteve, A., Lesthaeghe, R., & López-Gay, A. (2012). The Latin American cohabitation boom,
1970–2007. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 55–81.
García, B., & Rojas, O. (2002). Cambios en la formación y disolución de las uniones en América
Latina. Gaceta Laboral, 8(3), 391–410.
Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic research, 19(article 47), 1663–1692.
Kennedy, S., & Fitch, C. A. (2012). Measuring cohabitation and family structure in the United
States: Assessing the impact of new data from the current population survey. Demography,
49(4), 1479–1498. doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0126-8.
Klüsener, S., Perelli-Harris, B., & Gassen, N. S. (2013). Spatial aspects of the rise of nonmarital
fertility across Europe since 1960: The role of states and regions in shaping patterns of change.
European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 29(2), 137–165.
doi:10.1007/s10680-012-9278-x.
Laplante, B. (2006). The rise of cohabitation in Quebec. Power of religion and power over religion.
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 1–24.
Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre‐Adamcyk, É. (2004). Changes in conjugal life in Canada: Is cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 929–942.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00063.x.
Minnesota Population Center. (2014). Integrated public use microdata series, international:
Version 6.3 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Quilodrán, J. (1983). La nupcialidad en las áreas rurales de México. In R. Benítez, J. Quilodrán
(comps), La Fecundidad rural en México. México: El Colegio de México/UNAM, Cap. 5:
176–193 (Tables 11,12 and 17).
Quilodrán, J. (2001). A la búsqueda de modelos regionales de Nupcialidad. In J. Quilodrán. Un
siglo de matrimonio en México. México: Centro de Estudios Demográficos Y de Desarrollo
Urbano, Colegio de México, Cap.6: 205–251. ISBN 68121014X, 9789681210144.
Rodríguez Vignoli, J. (2005). Unión y cohabitación en América Latina: modernidad, exclusión,
diversidad? Santiago de Chile: CELADE, División de Población de la CEPAL and UNFPA,
Serie Población y Desarrollo 57.
Soons, J. P., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). Is marriage more than cohabitation? Well‐being differences in
30 european countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1141–1157.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00660.x.
Vitali, A., Aassve, A., & Lappegård, T. (2015). Diffusion of childbearing within cohabitation.
Demography, 52(2), 355–377. doi:10.1007/s13524-015-0380-7.
Weeks, J. R. (2004). Chapter 19: The role of spatial analysis in demographic research. In M. F.
Goodchild, D. G. Janelle, (Eds.), Spatially integrated social science. (pp. 381–399). New York:
Oxford University Press.